The Cunda Sutta talks about two kinds of monks, viz. "Dhamma-devotee Monks" and "Jhana Monks". It would appear that these refers to (1) monks who are specialists in the Dhamma and devoted to memorizing and analyzing the Dhamma and (2) monks who are meditators. Reference: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an06/an06.046.than.htmlDoes this division still exists in the monastic order?

Refugee wrote:The Cunda Sutta talks about two kinds of monks, viz. "Dhamma-devotee Monks" and "Jhana Monks". It would appear that these refers to (1) monks who are specialists in the Dhamma and devoted to memorizing and analyzing the Dhamma and (2) monks who are meditators. Reference: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an06/an06.046.than.htmlDoes this division still exists in the monastic order?

I don't think there is an official distinction within the monastic order. But likely there are monks that are much more concerned with mediation and those that more incline to scholastic achievement. This doesn't mean that meditation monks are ignorant of the suttas (Ajahn Chah and Lee come to my mind). I also recall Ven. Bodhi mentioning that his own teacher, the Venerable Nyanaponika (?), would meditate everyday, although he is best known as a scholar. I add the question mark because I recall the phrase "my teacher" but am not quite sure which one he was referring to. Since he was very close to Nyanaponika I hazard to say that this was the monk in reference.

these days there's also chanting monks and comic book reading monks and and... but there is no real formal distinction. but you can tell which is which by spending any time around them or reading their books. also in some monks the labels overlap and you'll fine a scholar monk who is very well practiced in meditation. you can think of the differences like this the scholar is like an ivy league law professor and the meditation monk is a trial lawyer. you could talk to both of them about law, and learn from them both but their approaches are going to be very different as their skills were developed in different ways, one developed a skill to learn and absorb information and refined their skills of transmitting that information the other developed a skill of practicing with what information he learned and most likely didn't spend a lot of time learning the skill of transmission, because his time was spent finding different ways of making that information work in real time for an immediate outcome. if you wanted to learn from the scholar you could just listen or read, spend time lots of time with concepts and ideas. if you wanted to learn from the trial lawyer you'd have to get in the action yourself be a paralegal , get yelled at, maybe lose a case, face disappointment, break downs etc, but maybe you'll stand strong and end up a great lawyer too.and when discussing how the law works the professor will tell you, the law says A B C that all it's very clear and exact and should be understood in a certain way. while the Trial lawyer will tell you, nothing is quite like it says in the books, that unexpected things pop up all the time and sometimes you have to play with the law a bit to make it work just right.

สัพเพ สัตตา สุขีตา โหนตุ

the mountain may be heavy in and of itself, but if you're not trying to carry it it's not heavy to you- Ajaan Suwat